Troll Kingdom
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
EI Guideline Vote
- Thread starter Caitriona
- Start date
Captain Jack
New member
HeroicFool said:Heh, posting here and agreeing with us...
It won't be long before Rhea starts trolling you and getting away with it darlin'.
Just put "skcus ie wonk lla ew" in your sig. That'll surely get her attention.
Where are my manners? Hi Rhea
Grandtheftcow
Grand Wizard of TK
There's talk of vote garnering in the thread now from QueenTiye and Una Salus Lillius to push for a no vote.
Interesting times ahead.
Interesting times ahead.
And I can safely say I've never seen a thread--or admins--go quite that way before... at least not at Ex Isle.
I'd mention this on EI, if I didn't think it'd automatically get lumped into the 'OMG WE ARE NOT SLIPSTREAM' category. Well, guess what... the fact that Slipstream is the cited precedent doesn't make our downfall into it any less valid.
I'd mention this on EI, if I didn't think it'd automatically get lumped into the 'OMG WE ARE NOT SLIPSTREAM' category. Well, guess what... the fact that Slipstream is the cited precedent doesn't make our downfall into it any less valid.
Captain Jack
New member
Even Lord of the Sword is pissed about how the staff is handling this. Their basically telling folks that they can't start other threads concerning this and what not. Goddamn! Eventually I realized that RobL, and CU were actually right, but I wonder if this even surprises them. Yikes. EI's done. It's complete chaos there. That board will never recover from this now. Never.
Una Salus Lillius
Whatever
Anakam said:
Except that I've had to bite my cyber tongue several times in the last 48 hours to keep from "Slipstreamizing" (like "Godwinizing only better") the discussion by pointing out just how EERILY familiar this all feels. It almost feels like someone laying the groundwork for shut down. I HATE saying that, I really do because I remember why and how the place started and it sucks to see this going on right now.
Lil
Lil, good to see you here again, and your sig is making me all twitchy.
Not that I can't understand people's desire to not be endlessly compared to the old board, but it's honestly MORE than earned at this point, and there are no doubt other examples out there.
Interesting stuff from the first two guidelines threads at EI... let's see if I maxed out the post length here...
http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?showtopic=751
Enmar: "I think the Exisle is different than other web communities because people around here understand how important this place is for us. I think that the atmosphere of the Exisle's first days should be preserved somehow in the board policy." -4 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Kosh: " As long as it doesn't become a "policy", and no members ever get an "offical warning", I think I can live with it. The day they do become policy, and a member gets a warning i'll be done with this place." -4 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Lil: "The internet is a medium in which miscommunication is particularly likely because unlike face to face interractions, we don't have the benefit of seeing a person's face, hearing the tone of their voice, or hearing inflections which may indicate an intent that just doesn't come across if all you see is the written word. Please keep this in mind when someone writes something that upsets you." - 4 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines (guidelines suggestion)
the 'Hawk: "The only other thing I can say right now is, don't expect a lot of SlipStream-style stuff. When we say we want your opinions on what is posted above, we bloody well mean it.
So contribute early and often. We're not just going to toss up a board policy and expect you to deal with it. This is one online community that doesn't swing that way." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Lil: "At the risk of sounding like a fuzzy brained liberal, I am going to cite the US constitution as an excellent example of a vague document that has stood the test of time.
slipstream rules had specificity.
They failed." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Lil: "The balancing act is to set forth guidelines (in which the population of the community have a participatory role in creating, the importance of which I can't emphasize enough because it's difficult to complain about something when you had a hand in its creation) to ensure the continued smooth operation of the board, WITHOUT imposing "rules" that give all power to a select few.
Certainly there will be disagreements and to assume otherwise would, in my view, be naive. The point here is that the administration of *THIS* board recognizes the value of allowing the population to have input *at the outset* into guidelines, and the value of fashioning guidelines that are meant to be flexible." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Godeskian: "I would like to see a line saying.
"Under no conditions will any user be permanently banned."
Even if they post illegal/upsetting content constantly, i would rather ban them every three months or whatever time frame there might be, rather than go down the morally unjustifiable slope of permanent bans." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Godeskian: "My problem with permabans is that once you start, where do you stop
Yes, people who endanger this website by their post deserved to get a short, sharp kick to the backside, but banning them forever, without any possible reprieve under any conditions, i have a real problem with.
I hate the idea that someone is so irredeemable that they can never, ever, under any circumstances come back and be decent people because i don't believe there are many such people around.
This is the same argument i made when Seb was banned fromt he IRC chatroom, and the same message i sent to Lisa when HF was banned a SS.
Ban for 6 months, a year, whatever, but the moment anyone gains the power to permanetly get rid of people with no possible repireve or consideration, then you are getting into very dangerous moral territory.
That having been said, i'm not against banning people for breaking the rules. I'm against there being no possible way, ever, to redeem someone, which is what a permaban means." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Shalamar: "Gode, I do believe there are those that are irredemeable, there are those that delight in causing trouble, sor what ever reason." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Rhys: "I'd like to point out that we're deliberately avoiding any kind of formulaic bans system here. Any sort of suspension of posting privileges will be considered extreme measures." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
the 'Hawk: "While I won't comment on the permaban issue directly, I will say that while the guidelines we're offering have to remain consistently applied --and fairly -- if we turn them into hard, fast rules, we occupy a static position. And the moment we take up a hardpoint, our defense (against trolls, against infringements on people's privileges/rights, against things we really think are cool) necessarily has to flow around that hardpoint. And if we take up too many our defensive efforts will be hampered down and mostly useless." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
the 'Hawk: "A greater concern (especially for me, who gets to moderate the fallout discussions in AQG) are the matters of personal conflict between two strongly-opinionated members of this board. More often than not, I love them both and appreciate what they have to say-- and would defend their right to say it, even if I disagree strongly with it. (Talk about compromise of moderatorial integrity-- I am such a hopeless romantic.) "
&
"Going after individual members with disciplinary punishments would be our last resort. We encourage everyone to work out their differences on the board, in their posts, first. Because we don't want to get involved if we don't have to. It's not that we're lazy-- trust me, I've seen these mods of yours at work, they are dedicated, caring, devoted and charming individuals, every one. But having to intervene as a mod, having to wield the sword of power we don't draw lightly, it makes our souls icky. And nobody wants that."
&
"But remember, we're here to help. Not to rule." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
the 'Hawk: "Shaw said, "it is admirable to have a giant's strength, but it is arrogant to use it like a giant."
And the only things giant at the Ex Isle are the hearts of its members.
Ignorance, impudence, arrogance-- these are traits I think we left in Lisa's incapable hands.
I should rather they be left there." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Drew: "As moderators and administrators, you must NOT assign intent to a post that is not present in the words themselves. The moment you start trying to psychoanalyze the membership is the moment you've adopted the "us vs. them" mentality that brought down that other board." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Drew: "But if there's a question about a poster's intent, moderators should skew toward the most positive interpretation as a rule, instead of automatically assuming that a member has some sort of evil intent." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
the 'Hawk: http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?s=&showtopic=751&view=findpost&p=13529 (entire post)
Enmar: "I don’t like that. The real meaning of higher standards is that the others can lower their standards. We all know that, we know where it leads and we’ve been there."
&
Why don’t we separate them? Let’s write one document as to who we are, why we’re here and what type of behavior we expect from ourselves and every one who joins. And then we can have another document, short and clear about what can mods and admin do under certain extreme circumstances."
&
"What am I saying? Basically, again, that I believe that the more power the posters will have, the more responsible we will all feel and behave ourselves. More than that, when a board is dear to you, you swallow offences, just like when a friend is dear to you." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Godeskian: "Right now i trust all the mods and admins. I i start to see behavior that i find questionable without seeing any form of explanation for said behavoir, it is likely to lead to the same erosion of trust as happened at ssbbs" -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Drew: "When one is given the ability to edit, delete or otherwise control the Ex Isle board, one is also given a trust. Those given that trust are expected to live up to that trust. But they must not be expected to be treated as monarchs over their little fiefdoms. This is all about service to the community. It's not about added benefits to the person chosen as moderator."
&
"And there's another Slipstream holdover we need to reject ASAP--the idea that certain forums are within the sole jurisdiction of its moderators. This is one of the things that created problems at the Slipstream. You ended up with different standards of behavior for each forum, further confusing the membership on what was or what wasn't allowed. Criticizing Andromeda in the Sci Fi/Fantasy forum barely got a shrug. But criticize it in Gen Disc. and you had moderators trying to decide if you should be banned for trolling."
&
"When analyzing the behavior of the mods in the aftermath of the OQ spill, most recognized that John Burke, though in name a member of a group of hooligans, always behaved as a gentleman. The membership at the Slipstream was smart enough to recognize the upstanding individual admist a gang of jerks. Trust the citizens to trust the individual. Anyone who trusts in the title alone is a fool." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Cardie: "That is the price one has to pay for the responsibility entrusted. It doesn't mean surrendering the right to have strongly held opinions but it absolutely means surrendering the right to make it personal, imo." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
HeroicFool: "We have mods for a reason and it's not to ban people that lose their tempers. It's to make sure that the law is obeyed and that the board remains standing." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
jon3831: "Now, I realize that the owner is the God Of The Board, and he can do whatever the hell he wants, but he should realize that conduct unbecoming his moderators looks badly on the board itself. To echo what others have said, being a moderator is a position of trust (trust accorded by both the Owners and Posters), and when that trust is violated, action needs to be taken. Publicly. It doesn't really matter if it's relief or reprimand, it needs to be handled in a manner other than a vague "We're working on it." We've all seen that happen before, and I don't thing we want it to happen here. I know I don't." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Lil: "See what I don't want to see is things getting unnecessarily escalated when in most cases "official" action simply isn't necessary." 6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Drew: "Situations that desperately needed response or clarification would be ignored by the mods because they didn't want to have to actually MODERATE anything. Sweeping issues under the rug or hoping that potentially volatile situations will just blow over is not what I would call "moderating."" 6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Pickles: "And if there isn't room for all the different personalities and comfort levels, then what is the point of this place?
The only thing that must occur is for the one who intervenes to do so politely, and discreetly." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Cardie: "It was everyone trying to figure out what was warnable that produced all the conflict, led the mods to start taking things out disproportionately on posters who annoyed them, and made the place miserable. That is why I am for vagueness and for keeping the words "warnings" and "bans" out of our vocabulary."
&
"For all other sorts of bad behavior, I favor a public "cool it down" post by the mod in the thread in question, followed by PM communication with all aggrieved parties. If a post is to be edited, the mod should do everything to get the poster in question to rethink his or her position and make an edit he or she is comfortable with. But finally, if it's just people having an argument and not stopping it, I think board health is better served by letting things play out. Paradoxically, most people will cool down on their own if they don't expect a specific sanction for having initially become angry. But mods should be proactive, making a public statement first and letting everyone see on the record that the mod is concerned. This will be our official signal that we are working on things behind the scenes."
&
"I agree that the suspension of posting privileges should be a rare and last resort, and never done until everyone on the administrative team is convinced that there is no other way to protect the board from patently illegal and vicious behavior." -7 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Drew: "There are essentially two approaches to making up a set of guidelines:
One way is to attempt to create a rule governing every possible type of behavior that might show up, and a scale for warnings or bans so that everyone will know exactly what will happen to them when they step out of line.
The other approach is to keep guidelines at a minimum, and attempt to be as lenient as possible, trusting the force of community to keep things in line.
The second approach describes the early days of the Slipstream (and Cardie has spoken at length about how it worked). The first is what we got after Lisa showed up." -7 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Rhys: "People who are not going out of their way to be disruptive of the community (and questioning/challenging policy in AQG certainly does not fall into the "disrputive" category, in case you were wondering) aren't likely to be banned in the first place." -7 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
-----------------
http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?showtopic=752&st=0
Rov: "However, an IP ban would only be used for bandwidth attacks, which is something totally different.
For someone who got banned, we'd lock the account's posting privelages. IOW, they'd still be able to view the board, just not post." -7 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Ro: "However, I see at least one critical difference between SS and EI.
Rov is a part of this community, and has been for some time, in a way Christian never was." -7 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Rov: "I will never, ever use the excuse of "It's my board" to make a unilateral decision. As much as possible, input from the members will be collected and heeded." -7 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
the 'Hawk: "Because what I honestly see them doing here --and forgive me if I'm proven wrong about this some dark day in the future-- is working with the community, for the best possible solutions for the community, as suggested and spoken on by the community.
You can bet my SlipStream account that Lisa never took the time to do anything of the sort.
And you can bet my EI account on that being the approach that will be taken every chance we get." -8 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Lil: "Let me state for the record that I LOATHE the idea of a system where any person and 14 of his or her friends can get someone suspended by complaining (with no grounds identified even). And then to make matters worse, it should become a public debate as to whether the person is reinstated?" -13 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Nick: "Re-reading some stuff . . . it's reminding me that too many rules gum up the works. I'm content to pretend I never even threw that idea out there, because in looking back . . . moderator checks and balances are good, but one of the things I think helped kill slipstream was the loss of it's kindof "let's wing it" approach, and too much getting bogged down in the letter of the law . . . which we shouldn't repeat. "That which governs least, governs best" IMHO." -14 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Nick: "But . . . the aforementioned crackpot idea I had this afternoon . . . was just that. A crackpot idea. 15 was an arbitrary number, thrown at an arbitrary idea. I wanted/and still kinda want . . . something written in place where the line is drawn, so to speak. I.E. If things were to get bad (which, at present point I don't think they will anytime soon, but I've always been a fan of packing a lunch for a rainy day) there are steps in place that *make* administration step back and say "whoa".
The suggestion, which I've already admitted was a super-dumb one . . . was intended as something to get folks milling over that "what-if" situation. "What-if" there is a crappy mod down the road . . . and "what if" the administrators at that point are being wishy-washy about it? What's written that we (as a community) can use to help us fix things?" -14 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Not that I can't understand people's desire to not be endlessly compared to the old board, but it's honestly MORE than earned at this point, and there are no doubt other examples out there.
Interesting stuff from the first two guidelines threads at EI... let's see if I maxed out the post length here...
http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?showtopic=751
Enmar: "I think the Exisle is different than other web communities because people around here understand how important this place is for us. I think that the atmosphere of the Exisle's first days should be preserved somehow in the board policy." -4 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Kosh: " As long as it doesn't become a "policy", and no members ever get an "offical warning", I think I can live with it. The day they do become policy, and a member gets a warning i'll be done with this place." -4 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Lil: "The internet is a medium in which miscommunication is particularly likely because unlike face to face interractions, we don't have the benefit of seeing a person's face, hearing the tone of their voice, or hearing inflections which may indicate an intent that just doesn't come across if all you see is the written word. Please keep this in mind when someone writes something that upsets you." - 4 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines (guidelines suggestion)
the 'Hawk: "The only other thing I can say right now is, don't expect a lot of SlipStream-style stuff. When we say we want your opinions on what is posted above, we bloody well mean it.
So contribute early and often. We're not just going to toss up a board policy and expect you to deal with it. This is one online community that doesn't swing that way." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Lil: "At the risk of sounding like a fuzzy brained liberal, I am going to cite the US constitution as an excellent example of a vague document that has stood the test of time.
slipstream rules had specificity.
They failed." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Lil: "The balancing act is to set forth guidelines (in which the population of the community have a participatory role in creating, the importance of which I can't emphasize enough because it's difficult to complain about something when you had a hand in its creation) to ensure the continued smooth operation of the board, WITHOUT imposing "rules" that give all power to a select few.
Certainly there will be disagreements and to assume otherwise would, in my view, be naive. The point here is that the administration of *THIS* board recognizes the value of allowing the population to have input *at the outset* into guidelines, and the value of fashioning guidelines that are meant to be flexible." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Godeskian: "I would like to see a line saying.
"Under no conditions will any user be permanently banned."
Even if they post illegal/upsetting content constantly, i would rather ban them every three months or whatever time frame there might be, rather than go down the morally unjustifiable slope of permanent bans." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Godeskian: "My problem with permabans is that once you start, where do you stop
Yes, people who endanger this website by their post deserved to get a short, sharp kick to the backside, but banning them forever, without any possible reprieve under any conditions, i have a real problem with.
I hate the idea that someone is so irredeemable that they can never, ever, under any circumstances come back and be decent people because i don't believe there are many such people around.
This is the same argument i made when Seb was banned fromt he IRC chatroom, and the same message i sent to Lisa when HF was banned a SS.
Ban for 6 months, a year, whatever, but the moment anyone gains the power to permanetly get rid of people with no possible repireve or consideration, then you are getting into very dangerous moral territory.
That having been said, i'm not against banning people for breaking the rules. I'm against there being no possible way, ever, to redeem someone, which is what a permaban means." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Shalamar: "Gode, I do believe there are those that are irredemeable, there are those that delight in causing trouble, sor what ever reason." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Rhys: "I'd like to point out that we're deliberately avoiding any kind of formulaic bans system here. Any sort of suspension of posting privileges will be considered extreme measures." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
the 'Hawk: "While I won't comment on the permaban issue directly, I will say that while the guidelines we're offering have to remain consistently applied --and fairly -- if we turn them into hard, fast rules, we occupy a static position. And the moment we take up a hardpoint, our defense (against trolls, against infringements on people's privileges/rights, against things we really think are cool) necessarily has to flow around that hardpoint. And if we take up too many our defensive efforts will be hampered down and mostly useless." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
the 'Hawk: "A greater concern (especially for me, who gets to moderate the fallout discussions in AQG) are the matters of personal conflict between two strongly-opinionated members of this board. More often than not, I love them both and appreciate what they have to say-- and would defend their right to say it, even if I disagree strongly with it. (Talk about compromise of moderatorial integrity-- I am such a hopeless romantic.) "
&
"Going after individual members with disciplinary punishments would be our last resort. We encourage everyone to work out their differences on the board, in their posts, first. Because we don't want to get involved if we don't have to. It's not that we're lazy-- trust me, I've seen these mods of yours at work, they are dedicated, caring, devoted and charming individuals, every one. But having to intervene as a mod, having to wield the sword of power we don't draw lightly, it makes our souls icky. And nobody wants that."
&
"But remember, we're here to help. Not to rule." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
the 'Hawk: "Shaw said, "it is admirable to have a giant's strength, but it is arrogant to use it like a giant."
And the only things giant at the Ex Isle are the hearts of its members.
Ignorance, impudence, arrogance-- these are traits I think we left in Lisa's incapable hands.
I should rather they be left there." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Drew: "As moderators and administrators, you must NOT assign intent to a post that is not present in the words themselves. The moment you start trying to psychoanalyze the membership is the moment you've adopted the "us vs. them" mentality that brought down that other board." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Drew: "But if there's a question about a poster's intent, moderators should skew toward the most positive interpretation as a rule, instead of automatically assuming that a member has some sort of evil intent." -5 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
the 'Hawk: http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?s=&showtopic=751&view=findpost&p=13529 (entire post)
Enmar: "I don’t like that. The real meaning of higher standards is that the others can lower their standards. We all know that, we know where it leads and we’ve been there."
&
Why don’t we separate them? Let’s write one document as to who we are, why we’re here and what type of behavior we expect from ourselves and every one who joins. And then we can have another document, short and clear about what can mods and admin do under certain extreme circumstances."
&
"What am I saying? Basically, again, that I believe that the more power the posters will have, the more responsible we will all feel and behave ourselves. More than that, when a board is dear to you, you swallow offences, just like when a friend is dear to you." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Godeskian: "Right now i trust all the mods and admins. I i start to see behavior that i find questionable without seeing any form of explanation for said behavoir, it is likely to lead to the same erosion of trust as happened at ssbbs" -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Drew: "When one is given the ability to edit, delete or otherwise control the Ex Isle board, one is also given a trust. Those given that trust are expected to live up to that trust. But they must not be expected to be treated as monarchs over their little fiefdoms. This is all about service to the community. It's not about added benefits to the person chosen as moderator."
&
"And there's another Slipstream holdover we need to reject ASAP--the idea that certain forums are within the sole jurisdiction of its moderators. This is one of the things that created problems at the Slipstream. You ended up with different standards of behavior for each forum, further confusing the membership on what was or what wasn't allowed. Criticizing Andromeda in the Sci Fi/Fantasy forum barely got a shrug. But criticize it in Gen Disc. and you had moderators trying to decide if you should be banned for trolling."
&
"When analyzing the behavior of the mods in the aftermath of the OQ spill, most recognized that John Burke, though in name a member of a group of hooligans, always behaved as a gentleman. The membership at the Slipstream was smart enough to recognize the upstanding individual admist a gang of jerks. Trust the citizens to trust the individual. Anyone who trusts in the title alone is a fool." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Cardie: "That is the price one has to pay for the responsibility entrusted. It doesn't mean surrendering the right to have strongly held opinions but it absolutely means surrendering the right to make it personal, imo." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
HeroicFool: "We have mods for a reason and it's not to ban people that lose their tempers. It's to make sure that the law is obeyed and that the board remains standing." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
jon3831: "Now, I realize that the owner is the God Of The Board, and he can do whatever the hell he wants, but he should realize that conduct unbecoming his moderators looks badly on the board itself. To echo what others have said, being a moderator is a position of trust (trust accorded by both the Owners and Posters), and when that trust is violated, action needs to be taken. Publicly. It doesn't really matter if it's relief or reprimand, it needs to be handled in a manner other than a vague "We're working on it." We've all seen that happen before, and I don't thing we want it to happen here. I know I don't." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Lil: "See what I don't want to see is things getting unnecessarily escalated when in most cases "official" action simply isn't necessary." 6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Drew: "Situations that desperately needed response or clarification would be ignored by the mods because they didn't want to have to actually MODERATE anything. Sweeping issues under the rug or hoping that potentially volatile situations will just blow over is not what I would call "moderating."" 6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Pickles: "And if there isn't room for all the different personalities and comfort levels, then what is the point of this place?
The only thing that must occur is for the one who intervenes to do so politely, and discreetly." -6 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
Cardie: "It was everyone trying to figure out what was warnable that produced all the conflict, led the mods to start taking things out disproportionately on posters who annoyed them, and made the place miserable. That is why I am for vagueness and for keeping the words "warnings" and "bans" out of our vocabulary."
&
"For all other sorts of bad behavior, I favor a public "cool it down" post by the mod in the thread in question, followed by PM communication with all aggrieved parties. If a post is to be edited, the mod should do everything to get the poster in question to rethink his or her position and make an edit he or she is comfortable with. But finally, if it's just people having an argument and not stopping it, I think board health is better served by letting things play out. Paradoxically, most people will cool down on their own if they don't expect a specific sanction for having initially become angry. But mods should be proactive, making a public statement first and letting everyone see on the record that the mod is concerned. This will be our official signal that we are working on things behind the scenes."
&
"I agree that the suspension of posting privileges should be a rare and last resort, and never done until everyone on the administrative team is convinced that there is no other way to protect the board from patently illegal and vicious behavior." -7 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Drew: "There are essentially two approaches to making up a set of guidelines:
One way is to attempt to create a rule governing every possible type of behavior that might show up, and a scale for warnings or bans so that everyone will know exactly what will happen to them when they step out of line.
The other approach is to keep guidelines at a minimum, and attempt to be as lenient as possible, trusting the force of community to keep things in line.
The second approach describes the early days of the Slipstream (and Cardie has spoken at length about how it worked). The first is what we got after Lisa showed up." -7 Feb 03, Draft of User/Mod Guidelines
Rhys: "People who are not going out of their way to be disruptive of the community (and questioning/challenging policy in AQG certainly does not fall into the "disrputive" category, in case you were wondering) aren't likely to be banned in the first place." -7 Feb 03, Draft of Mod/User Guidelines
-----------------
http://www.exisle.net/mb/index.php?showtopic=752&st=0
Rov: "However, an IP ban would only be used for bandwidth attacks, which is something totally different.
For someone who got banned, we'd lock the account's posting privelages. IOW, they'd still be able to view the board, just not post." -7 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Ro: "However, I see at least one critical difference between SS and EI.
Rov is a part of this community, and has been for some time, in a way Christian never was." -7 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Rov: "I will never, ever use the excuse of "It's my board" to make a unilateral decision. As much as possible, input from the members will be collected and heeded." -7 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
the 'Hawk: "Because what I honestly see them doing here --and forgive me if I'm proven wrong about this some dark day in the future-- is working with the community, for the best possible solutions for the community, as suggested and spoken on by the community.
You can bet my SlipStream account that Lisa never took the time to do anything of the sort.
And you can bet my EI account on that being the approach that will be taken every chance we get." -8 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Lil: "Let me state for the record that I LOATHE the idea of a system where any person and 14 of his or her friends can get someone suspended by complaining (with no grounds identified even). And then to make matters worse, it should become a public debate as to whether the person is reinstated?" -13 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Nick: "Re-reading some stuff . . . it's reminding me that too many rules gum up the works. I'm content to pretend I never even threw that idea out there, because in looking back . . . moderator checks and balances are good, but one of the things I think helped kill slipstream was the loss of it's kindof "let's wing it" approach, and too much getting bogged down in the letter of the law . . . which we shouldn't repeat. "That which governs least, governs best" IMHO." -14 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Nick: "But . . . the aforementioned crackpot idea I had this afternoon . . . was just that. A crackpot idea. 15 was an arbitrary number, thrown at an arbitrary idea. I wanted/and still kinda want . . . something written in place where the line is drawn, so to speak. I.E. If things were to get bad (which, at present point I don't think they will anytime soon, but I've always been a fan of packing a lunch for a rainy day) there are steps in place that *make* administration step back and say "whoa".
The suggestion, which I've already admitted was a super-dumb one . . . was intended as something to get folks milling over that "what-if" situation. "What-if" there is a crappy mod down the road . . . and "what if" the administrators at that point are being wishy-washy about it? What's written that we (as a community) can use to help us fix things?" -14 Feb 03, Draft 2 of the guidelines
Captain Jack
New member
Holy crap! Lil! 
What a delightful surprise!!! OMG! Things must really going down the shitter if Lil posts here! Yikes.
{{{{{{{{{{{{Lil}}}}}}}}}}}}
What a delightful surprise!!! OMG! Things must really going down the shitter if Lil posts here! Yikes.{{{{{{{{{{{{Lil}}}}}}}}}}}}
HeroicFool
New member
Anakam, you're my hero.
HeroicFool
New member
Hehe
Oh? Please, go on
Oh? Please, go on
Captain Jack
New member
HeroicFool said:Anakam, you're my hero.
No, she's MY hero! But since your hair is as long as mine, and we both rock, I'll share...a little.
/////HF
Just kidding.
Captain Jack
New member
EVERYBODY HERE ROCKS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Captain Jack
New member
Damn, I think I just wet myself...
Captain Jack
New member
Anakam said:What's hair length got to do with it?
HF--nice ideal, huh?
Tyr has long dark hair. So does Cap'n Jack.
And we both like to plunder and loot. And look for booty. It doesn't make any sense, but why should it. Neither is EI right now. Blah!
HeroicFool
New member
No need to share to that extent A Karas.
Lil, good to see your dander up once again. You should check out the last few posts in Cait's suspension thread. I used alot of your old quotes in there to address the issue that lead to her ban.
Rock on.
Lil, good to see your dander up once again. You should check out the last few posts in Cait's suspension thread. I used alot of your old quotes in there to address the issue that lead to her ban.
Rock on.
Una Salus Lillius
Whatever
I third HF and A Karas.
But I seem to remember that brackets have a somewhat different meaning here at TK than they have in other message boards I've joined so I think I'll let discretion guide me for the time being.
Lil
But I seem to remember that brackets have a somewhat different meaning here at TK than they have in other message boards I've joined so I think I'll let discretion guide me for the time being.
Lil
